Casual Volley

Middling, pedestrian, unspecial: that is where Battle of the Sexes exists amongst the pantheon of great films released in 2017. As a testament to Billie Jean King’s life and legacy, though, I love it wholeheartedly—I adored every minute of it.

In a film ostensibly about one of the most publicized tennis matches in history, the focus of directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris rests squarely on Billie Jean King, her mind for equality, and her pioneering spirit—and rightly so. They capture her unwavering drive to fight for what is right regardless of individual cost. They clarify the deep, personal struggle surrounding her sexual awakening, situating it within the wider social context of the time. They champion her just as she champions women and the LGBT community to this very day.

Emma Stone portrays King as well as anyone could, penetrating deep into King’s tempestuous psyche with stark juxtapositions of external boldness and internal insecurity as well as outspoken gender-equality activism and unspoken homosexuality. Stone seems to have studied tape of her muse meticulously, nailing her mannerisms and speech, and their personal friendship no doubt inspired a particularly thoughtful and humanizing performance. Steve Carell’s Bobby Riggs can’t be beat; his roles as hapless hustler and extravagant chauvinist are on full display, marked by the special brand of clownishness that only Riggs could peddle. What we don’t see—and shouldn’t—is Riggs passed off as a prime paragon of patriarchal oppression, responsible for society’s ills and worthy of loathing. Carell’s Bobby Riggs, just as the real one, is an opportunist, certainly a true believer of the sexist ideals he purveyed but also willfully caricaturistic of the misogyny rampant in the greater American society, happy to over-inflate his antifeminism to make a quick buck.

In a demonstration of deft directorial decision-making, Dayton and Faris situate the Battle of the Sexes itself as both a centerpiece of and a springboard for King’s lifelong activism. Traditionally, the Battle is understood to have been a proving ground for gender equality, King’s defeat of Riggs having supposedly demonstrated the equality between men and women. This was, of course, not true, just as other losses by women to men did not prove the inverse. This is not to say the match was insignificant, however. The Battle of the Sexes inspired—even galvanized—a generation of women, and its widespread popularity enlarged the platform from which King expounded the moral philosophies of human dignity and justice by which she has long lived and by which she will always be known. Significant credit should be awarded to Dayton and Faris for recognizing this complicated truth and bearing it out in their work. 

It is true that the film takes creative license at certain junctures in order to capture the essence of a moment rather than its specifics. At times, it comes off as ruthless and un-nuanced when addressing those who stood in the way of social progress. It is not the directorial masterpiece that Dunkirk is, and neither Stone nor Carell demonstrate the acting caliber of, say, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour or Timothée Chalamet in Call Me by Your Name. No, what this film contains within it is perhaps more important—the distilled legacy of a prolific figure in modern sporting history who has devoted her life to the empowerment of women, the dignity of the LGBT community, and overall human equality. 

As you may have noticed, casualvolley​, which has operated as a tennis blog for several years now, has entered a period of hiatus. Given the concern that has been expressed to me over the last two weeks or so, I thought I would reveal the reasoning behind this change.

Anyone who has followed this blog for any measurable amount of time knows that I am a passionate fan of the sport of tennis and I have been for nearly a decade. I remain so today. But, what you may have also realized is that I am not a tennis fan for the reasons many others are. I do not find myself to be enamored with players' personalities and I hold no nationalistic allegiances. I am neither excited by athleticism nor am I captivated by the prospect of grinding warfare. These are not the qualities that drew me into tennis nine years ago as I watched Roger Federer and Andre Agassi duel on Arthur Ashe.

Instead, I am somewhat of a purist in my tendencies as a tennis fan. I watch tennis almost exclusively to be in awe of what a player can do with their racquet (rather than with their legs, for example). Therefore, the entertainment—the reason one watches sport—that I draw from tennis emanates from a certain style of tennis and those players who employ it effectively. It is the aggressive brand of tennis that I like most, particularly that which is characterized by power, supplemented by variety, and/or accented by just a touch of flair. The men and women who most embody these characteristics have enthralled me for the better part of a decade, offering hundreds of matches of top quality entertainment.

Unfortunately, tennis—both men’s and women’s—seems to be moving away from the sort of aggressive, aesthetically pleasing, first-strike style that I find so captivating. Technological innovation and an increased emphasis on supreme physical fitness continue to move the sport in the opposite direction, and the irrevocability of both seems to suggest the pendulum may not swing back in any significant manner in the near future. Overall, professional tennis has changed just enough in my time as an obsessed ardent fan to precipitate a change in my feelings toward the sport.

Throughout the last decade, a number of players defied this trend by succeeding at the top of the game with an aggressive mentality, making tennis an extremely entertaining experience for me. However, most of them have retired, are approaching retirement, have moved beyond their best, or are struggling to find their best. While a few excitingly aggressive-minded men and women remain at the top of the game, current trends suggest that tennis’ most coveted honors, especially on but not limited to the ATP tour, will continue to be taken by the great, defensive, ground-stroking baseliners of our day. Though these men and women are all incredible champions for whom I have immense respect, their playing styles do not provide me with the utmost excitement. It seems the players who do will be left with marginal successes as many of them have been for much of the last several years.

These phenomena have, of course, not arisen suddenly, but they are products of trends that have progressed gradually over many years. By this point, I find that my enthusiasm for tennis has waned too significantly to ignore. Moments of disinterest or disappointment have come to far outweigh instances of excitement and feelings of triumph. Furthermore, I no longer have hope that things will improve at any reasonable pace. Now that I have moved on from college and am striving to find a career, I believe this is the best juncture at which to make important changes to my life.

After thinking a lot about tomorrow's Wimbledon men's singles final between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, which is set to take place in less than 12 hours, I remain conflicted in my expectations.

On one hand, my head is telling me that there is no way Federer can possibly lose this final.

The Swiss legend has played phenomenal tennis over the fortnight, rising to every challenge he's faced, including a solid baseliner in Tommy Robredo, an on-fire Stan Wawrinka, and the big-serving Milos Raonic. Djokovic, by contrast, has struggled in a number of matches against all sorts of opposition. Modern master of the serve-and-volley, Radek Stepanek, stretched Djokovic over four sets in the second round. Quarterfinal opponent Marin Cilic exploited the Serb's mental uncertainty and took him to five sets. Then, just two days ago, the Federer-like Grigor Dimitrov had Djokovic on the ropes in a four-set semifinal; in fact, the young Bulgarian had set points to take it to a fifth.

Consequently, Federer is presumably in better physical and mental shape than Djokovic going into tomorrow's match. Djokovic has spent five more hours than Federer on court, a figure that constitutes a significant disadvantage for Djokovic even considering his age advantage. More importantly, Djokovic expended a lot of emotional energy in those long matches, fighting against his opponents' momentum as well as his own struggles.

Not only has Federer been in better form than Djokovic and spent less time on court, but he—approaching 33 years of age—still leads the head-to-head with Djokovic by two wins (18-16). He won two of their three matches this year (and took Djokovic to a third-set tiebreak in the one he lost) and won their only meeting on grass just two years ago at Wimbledon. All of this is important as it demonstrates Federer's ability to trouble his much younger rival even today.

Perhaps most importantly, Federer's game is tailor-made for the grass while Djokovic's is absolutely not. The grass hinders Djokovic's defensive abilities, causing him to slip and slide at the baseline. Not a natural volleyer, the Serb also struggles at the net at times, which eliminates the possibility of a reliable plan B. Meanwhile, Federer is arguably the greatest grass court player in men's tennis history, winning more titles on the surface than anyone in the Open Era, including a record 7 titles at Wimbledon. Unlike Djokovic, Federer is a natural volleyer, he moves effortlessly, and the pace, precision, and variety of his serve wins him tons of points on the grass.

Federer's success on this surface is one of the many things that gives him the edge over Djokovic in the confidence department as well. The Swiss believes in himself far more on grass than on any other surface when confronting younger rivals. He seems sure of his form, even in the face of strong opposition, and he has no reason to doubt himself. This contrasts with Djokovic, who is lower on confidence than he has been in years. Djokovic now has a long-standing tendency of playing poorly in big matches, which he's done since the 2012 French Open final. This is a tendency to which he has admitted in press conferences—one that causes doubt to enter his mind at crucial stages in matches. Djokovic also struggles to hold leads, his once-pristine backhand has grown less reliable, and he becomes perilously frustrated in many of his matches.

Therefore, all of the numerical and logical data points to one winner: Roger Federer.

On the other hand, my gut tells me different. It tells me, for no particular rational reason, that Djokovic will come away with the title.

Therefore, I am conflicted between the logic of my brain and the compelling, deafeningly loud voice of my gut. And, perhaps errantly, it is my gut that I feel compelled to listen to. I think Djokovic will beat Federer to win Wimbledon.

Roberta Vinci and Sara Errani defeated Timea Babos and Kristina Mladenovic to win the 2014 Wimbledon ladies' doubles title!

Kvitova deserves all the credit she gets for this win, and I believe she will go on to win more Wimbledon titles and have an even more successful career than she already has. Now number four in the world, the sky is the limit for Petra, and I hope she comes to dominate the tour one day, as her tennis is awe-inspiring.

As for Bouchard, she had an incredible fortnight at the Championships and an even more incredible year overall, especially at the three Majors. She has gained countless fans, helped to interest the Canadian people in her sport, and no one doubts that she will continue her ascent in the women's game. Her future is bright.

ESPN's 2014 Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Final Promo